Kirpianuscus and, maybe, it could not be more. because it is only expression of good intentions. honest. unconvincing. and this is the basic sin for a biopic who has the desire to reflect details of a life and career who remains, after his death, impressive. the status of essay is result of the short time after the rest of Hudson. and, maybe, the bad thing is the feeling to be more a picture of a man, with his secret life, with his sentimental adventures - presented as dramatic sketches- , the result being a general image of a gay actor and its impact with the public image.it is unfair to define it as a bad film. and useful to see it as decent essay.

stefano This film was well paced, but really didn't go in depth to show a longer TV career that Rock did have. The most strangest moment in the film, i remember was that Rock took his mother to the screening of his first motion picture that he starred in with Robert Stack. His mother leans over to him in the movie theater and basically tells him "dont quit your day job" as a reaction to his acting. The actor who portrayed Raoul Walsh was quit believable, giving Rock a small part in this first picture telling his agent, Henry: "Well he'll make good scenery" Also, another discrepancy is that when Rock met Marc Christian, they were friends for six months before sleeping together. The movie makes it look like they just jumped in the sack after a just a few meetings. Otherwise it was mildly entertaining.

roofusdc First of all this movie was made for television. Plot-wise it has a cheap movie of the week feel. The acting isn't bad. In fact the leads are all quite good and in some cases stellar. Any weaknesses in performances have more to do with really bad makeup. The ageing is horribly done and not very convincing.At one point "Rock" says, "some poor woman is missing her makeup kit" and it led me to wonder if the "poor woman" was in fact the film's makeup director. Dreadful stuff.A few others have commented on the accuracy of the characterizations -- I believe they're alluding to whether Rock Hudson gave Mark Christian AIDS without telling him he had it -- perhaps the most damning (and criminal) thing in the film. I'm not sure anyone knows other than the principles. George Nader is missing from the entire film.There are some serious gaps in this film. Massive gaps actually. The film presents the picture that Hudson's career was over by the mid 1960s and he retired from acting. Nothing could be further from the truth. The film omits the SEVEN seasons Rock Hudson played the lead in McMillan & Wife -- the popular detective series of the 1970s. For many of us it was our first introduction to Hudson.The other gap is the unbelievable prudishness in presenting Hudson's relationships. No kisses and very little tenderness. It is deceptive and a lie to present his relationships this way.There's a better film out there demanding to be made.

harry-76 There are two things to consider here: the script's accuracy and the drama's effectiveness.Since this is a bio, factual accuracy is important. However, the only authorities of what really took place are the real life subjects. In cases where only two people were involved in a situation--the late actor and second party--chances for proving historical accuracy are decidedly diminished. The only guide one can have is what's been garnered from other sources: press articles, film documentaries, various bio books, and the like. There were so many "cover ups" to the Hudson career, that it's tough to tell where truth ends and urban legend begins. Writer Dennis Turner obviously consulted court transcripts and legal documents among his sources, but who really knows what happened? William R. Moses' Marc Christian is played throughout like a sweet, innocent college junior; there's no hint there of anything but the purest of motives to his relationship. Andrew Robinson's Agent Henry Willson is not shown devising the "marriage of convenience" to Phyllis Gates. Nor is Thomas Ian Griffith's Rock ever seen making love to his various partners beyond innocent embraces--not even a mutual kiss. There's something irritatingly irresponsible about all of this, and John Nicoletta's overly cautious direction doesn't help. Released just five years after the actor's death in 1985, it's a good guess the writing began shortly thereafter to capitalize on its subject. Dramatically, there's not much more that emerges than tentative and superficial, with a cast trying its best to inject emotion into the enactment. Another film on Hudson is welcome--one with less sanitization and compromise and more sincerity and viewpoint.